coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ankara.
7.  At the material time the applicant was the leader of the People’s Democratic Party (HADEP). At a party meeting in Ankara in October 1999 he made a speech, which was recorded and scripted by the police officers of the Ankara Security Directorate.
8.  In an indictment dated 8 February 2000 the public prosecutor’s office at the Ankara State Security Court, on account of this speech, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground of disseminating propaganda against the indivisible unity of the state with its territory and nation, contrary to Section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
9.  In the proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court the applicant pleaded not guilty and maintained that he had never intended to promote separatism. He argued that he expressed his opinion on the country’s important questions as the leader of a political party, which is essential in a democratic society, criticised the existing practice and offered their solution to these problems. He further stated that his speech should be assessed within the scope of freedom of expression.
10.  On 1 June 2000 the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged by the public prosecutor. It ruled that the speech amounted to dissemination of separatist propaganda against the indivisible unity of the Turkish State with its territory and the nation. He was fined the amount of 800,000,000 Turkish liras and sentenced to one-year term of imprisonment.
11.  The applicant appealed against the conviction to the Court of Cassation. On 15 January 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, upholding the State Security Court’s assessment under Section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
4.  The applicant lives in Ankara.
5.  In 1973 the authorities conducted a land registry survey in Mudanya and revised the local plans. Following this revision, 25 plots belonging to the applicant were registered in the Land Registry under the title of 23 other persons. In June 1973 the applicant challenged this decision and applied to the Land Registry Council to have this decision annulled. However, on 26 May 1974 the Council rejected the applicant’s request.
6.  On 20 June 1974 the applicant brought an action in the Mudanya Land Registry Court against 23 defendants. She alleged that the land in dispute had belonged to her before the revision, and requested that the records in the Land Registry be corrected.
7.  In 1982 the case was transferred to the Mudanya Cadastre Court.
8.  On 14 May 2002 the Mudanya Cadastre Court rejected the applicant’s claims.
9.  On 25 March 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Mudanya Cadastre Court.
10.  The proceedings are still pending before the Mudanya Cadastre Court.
6.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1976, 1974 and 1968 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Nazilli at the time of their applications to the Court.
7.  The police officers at the Anti-Terror branch of the Antalya Security Directorate arrested Tayyip Ölmez, Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın and placed them in custody on 22 February, 13 March, 12 April and 24 April 1998 respectively.
8.  The Antalya Magistrates’ Court ordered the remand in custody of Tayyip Ölmez, Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın on 27 February, 22 March, 21 April and 29 April 1998 respectively.
9.  By indictments dated 24 March, 8 May, 17 May and 22 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court accused Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın of membership of an illegal organisation and Tayyip Ölmez of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that Vahdettin Budak be convicted and sentenced under Article 125 of Criminal Code. In respect of Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçin, the public prosecutor requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 §2 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. As for Tayyip Ölmez, the public prosecutor requested that he be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
10.  On 11 November 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Vahdettin Budak to life, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın to twelve years and six months and Tayyip Ölmez to five years’ imprisonment.
11.  On 11 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court. On 2 November 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the İzmir State Security Court.
12.  On 29 March 2005 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that all the applicants, except for Mr Vahdettin Budak, were released from prison.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk.
5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (the “Bagaliyskyy Court”) against the Bagaliyskyy Municipal Housing Enterprise, seeking the recovery of salary arrears.
6.  On 18 December 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the entity to pay him UAH 2543.49 (around 421 euros – “EUR”).
7.  On 23 December 2000 the Bagaliyskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 18 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and its lack of funds.
9.  On 6 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the Bagaliyskyy Court to have the debtor in the enforcement proceedings replaced, as the latter’s property had been transferred to the Dniprodzerzhynsk Housing Municipal Enterprise (the “DHME”) pursuant to the decision of the Dniprodzerzhynsk Town Council.
10.  On 17 June 2002 the court granted the request of the Bailiffs’ Service and ruled that the DHME was responsible for the payment of the judgment debt of 18 December 2000 to the applicant.
11.  On 29 September 2004 the DHME transferred the amount of the award to the deposit account of the Bailiffs’ Service.
12.  On 30 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service requested the applicant to provide them with his bank account details in order that they transfer the amount of the award.
13.  According to the Government, the applicant failed to provide the Bailiffs with the information requested.
14.  The applicant did not contest this submission.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Kramatorsk, Ukraine.
5.  In February 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kramatorsk Town Court against the Joint Stock Company “Konstantinovskyi Metzavod” – a State-owned enterprise – seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. On 18 June 2002 the court awarded the applicant UAH 4,937.86 (around EUR 815) in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant lodged with the Kostyantynivka Town Bailiffs’ Service a writ of execution for the judgment of 18 June 2002. On the same date the Bailiffs’ Service instituted the enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 31 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 18 June 2002 could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
8.  The judgment of 18 June 2002 remains unenforced.
9.  On 23 October 2002 the same court ordered the State Company “Domnaremont” to pay the applicant UAH 5,626.05 (around EUR 925) in salary arrears.
10.  The applicant did not apply to the Bailiffs’ Service for the execution of the judgment. It remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the village of Razdalovka, the Donetsk Region.
5.  On 12 April 2001 the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlovka (hereafter “the District Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 41,992[1] against the Komsomolskaya Coal Mine (a State-owned entity; hereafter “the Coal Mine”) for arrears of industrial disease benefits. The judgment became final and was sent to the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  According to a letter of the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice of 20 December 2001, the enforcement of the judgment was impeded by the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State owned enterprises which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.
7.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered a merger of the Coal Mine with several others to form the Artemvugilia State Company (hereafter “the Company”).
8.  On 8 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the District Court for directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case.
9.  On 1 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the compulsory enforcement proceedings following the applicant’s withdrawal of his writ of execution. The applicant alleged that he had done so under pressure from the Ministry of Fuel and Energy’s officials.
10.  The award was paid to the applicant in two instalments on 19 and 20 November 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vienna.
5.  On 9 December 1998 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code.
6.  On 8 April 1999 the presiding judge of the competent chamber of the Regional Court scheduled the applicant’s trial for 21 April 1999. On the first day of the trial, on 21 April 1999, the applicant was released from detention on remand and the hearing was adjourned in order to summon a witness residing in the Slovak Republic to the trial. At the hearing of 14 July 1999 the witnesses summoned in Slovakia did not appear. On 16 July 1999 the Regional Court sent letters rogatory requesting the summoning of these witnesses to the competent court in Bratislava. A further hearing was held on 24 November 1999 and the trial again adjourned.
7.  On 15 December 1999 the Bratislava District Court II informed the Regional Court that the summons could not be served on the witnesses.
8.  On 31 January 2000 the Regional Court requested the applicant to submit addresses to which the summons could be sent. On 15 May 2000 the applicant gave such information in respect of two of the witnesses.
9.  On 20 December 2000 the Regional Court again sent letters rogatory to the Slovakian judicial authority to hear one witness. It appears that the Slovakian courts did not succeed in obtaining statements of that witness.
10.  On 21 November 2001 a further hearing in the trial against the applicant took place. The Regional Court read out statements of three witnesses made at the pre-trial stage. The applicant’s counsel objected to the reading out of the statements. No witnesses were heard.
11.  On the same day, the Regional Court convicted the applicant on several counts of the offence under Section 209 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment suspended on probation for three years. The applicant was acquitted as regards other charges.
12.  On 8 January 2002 the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the sentence and, on 25 January 2002, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law and fact, as well as against the sentence. The applicant argued, inter alia, that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional in that it did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 and that the reading out of the statement of the witnesses at the trial violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention.
13.  On 8 April 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal, after a public hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal but granted the Public Prosecutor’s appeal and increased the sentence to nine months’ imprisonment, out of which six months were suspended on probation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Limassol.
5.  On 12 November 1993 he filed a civil action before the District Court of Limassol claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in respect of personal injuries suffered when he was hit by a car driven by the defendant on 7 December 1991.
6.  The parties’ pleadings were completed by 10 February 1995 and the applicant applied to the registrar to have the action fixed on 14 April 1995.
7.  Until the commencement of the trial on 9 May 1997, the case was adjourned four times, once by the court, once by the defendant and twice at the request of both parties.
8.  From 9 May 1997 until the trial’s conclusion on 8 October 1998 nine hearing sessions were held and the case was adjourned three times by the court.
9.  On 8 October 1998 judgment was reserved.
10.  Approximately nine months following the conclusion of the proceedings the Supreme Court took steps, ex proprio motu, under the Rules of Procedure concerning the prompt delivery of court judgments (1986) with regard to the delay in the delivery of the first instant judgment. The case was set before the Supreme Court several times for this purpose, some letters were sent by that court to the presiding district judge and an order was issued requiring the latter to deliver judgment.
11.  The district court delivered its decision on 29 June 2000 in favour of the applicant awarding damages thereto (amounting to CYP 110,000 plus interest).
12.  On 8 August 2000 the defendant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
13.  The Supreme Court was provided with the records of the first instance proceedings on 2 April 2001.
14.  The proceedings were concluded on 21 November 2001 by means of a settlement. Through the settlement the applicant was paid damages amounting to CYP 130,000 along with CYP 6,000 as expenses and interest on both amounts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Świnoujście, Poland.
5.  From 1990 until 1992 the applicant worked for a company in Cyprus as a technician for the installation of elevators in a hotel that was under construction at the time. On 1 June 1992 he was seriously injured following a work related accident and was hospitalised for 40 days.
6.  The Cypriot Ministry of Labour instituted criminal proceedings against the company that was found guilty of offences relating to the accident by the District Court of Paphos (31 March 1994) and on appeal by the Supreme Court (23 June 1996).
7.  On 17 September 1997 the applicant filed compensation proceedings before the District Court of Paphos against his employers (civil action no. 3449/97).
8.  Between 28 November 1997 and 23 October 2000 the case was continuously adjourned and no hearing was held. In particular, two adjournments were granted at the request of the applicant, one at the parties’ request and four at the defendants’ request. The adjournments were mainly for procedural reasons, primarily, the submission of pleadings and various applications and objections thereto. Further, there was a delay regarding the medical examination of the applicant by the defendants’ lawyers.
9.  The case was also adjourned by the court itself four times in the above period, inter alia, from 18 October 1999 until 14 March 2000 and from 13 April 2000 until 23 October 2000. Furthermore, within this period, two new judges were appointed to the case.
10.  The hearing began on 23 October 2000. Subsequently, between 24 October 2000 and 23 October 2001 the case was adjourned a total of ten times: once at the defendants’ request, once due to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer and eight times at the applicant’s request.
11.  On 24 October 2001 the hearing of the second application of the applicant for amendment of his statement of claim was held. The judge set 29 November 2001 as the date of delivery of the decision concerning the application. However, the relevant decision was not ready on that date and thus, the case was set sine die.
12.  On 23 May 2002 the decision on the application for amendment was delivered and the trial judge also informed the parties that a new judge would be appointed suggesting therefore that the trial should start anew.
13.  Between 23 May 2002 and 2 September 2002 the case was adjourned once due to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.
14.  On 2 September 2002 the parties agreed that the case should be tried anew.
15.  On 10 September 2002 the case was put before a new judge and the case was set for mention on 27 September 2002.
16.  The case was subsequently adjourned twice so that the parties could reach an agreement on a sum to be deposited as security of costs subsequent to an application by the applicant in this respect and an objection thereto by the defendant. On 22 October 2002 the court set the hearing for 4 and 5 February 2003.
17.  On 20 February 2003 the judge recorded an out-of-court settlement that was concluded by the parties for the payment of 16,500 Cypriot pounds (CYP) as damages for the injuries sustained by the applicant plus CYP 3,000 for legal costs.
4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1964 respectively and live in Nicosia.
5.  On 22 January 1998 the applicants filed a civil action before the District Court of Nicosia against the Bank of Cyprus Ltd concerning a deposit they had allegedly made to the latter in 1993. The applicants stated that, before filing the action, they had complained to the police and to the Attorney-General of the Republic, who they maintained, refused to investigate their case.
6.  The pleadings were completed on 16 November 1998 following five adjournments at the defendant’s request, with the applicants’ consent, in relation to the filing of its defence.
7.  From 16 November 1998 until 24 February 2003 the case was adjourned four times at the defendant’s request and with the applicants’ consent, twice at the parties’ and once at the applicant’s request. Further, the court adjourned the case six times mainly for the purpose of dealing with other civil actions. For example the case was adjourned from 30 April 1999 until 7 October 1999 and then to 1 February 2000; from November 2000 to 26 March 2001 and from 24 September 2001 until 28 February 2002 for directions. Within this period, the court also dealt with an interlocutory application filed by the defendant in the proceedings.
8.  The hearing of the case commenced on 24 February 2003 and concluded on 22 April 2003. Within this period a total of four hearing sessions were held and an interim decision was delivered.
9.  On 23 May 2003 the district court delivered its judgment dismissing the applicants’ action with costs to be paid by them.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Limassol.
5.  On 10 February 1986 the applicant filed a civil action (no. 702/86) before the District Court of Limassol against three individuals and a company in respect of a contract of sale of an apartment.
6.  On 11 September 1987 the case was taken off the trial list, following a request by the applicant’s lawyer and the accord of the defendants’ lawyer, in view of the fact that an application for a winding-up order of the defendant company was pending before the District Court of Nicosia. The court in particular stated that “by consent the action is taken off the trial list to be fixed afresh on the application of either side to the Registrar when the case [was] ready to be heard”.
7.  On 29 October 1987 the lawyer of the first three defendants notified the court that the winding-up order had been issued against the defendant company and that the applicant could only continue the action against the latter with the leave of the court.
8.  On 19 March 1988 the Official Receiver requested the court not to grant leave for the continuation of the action at that particular time. Thus, the proceedings remained suspended.
9.  The action was fixed for a hearing following a letter sent on 9 February 1995 to the court by the lawyer of the first three defendants.
10.  Between the above date and 7 March 2002, only two hearing sessions were held. The case was adjourned several times. Five of these adjournments were at the applicant’s request, two due to the absence of his lawyer, three at the parties’ and two at the defendants’ request. The adjournments related to, inter alia, amendments to pleadings and objections thereto and appointment of administrators and new lawyers. The applicant had requested an additional adjournment within this period, which had been rejected by the court. Further, the case was adjourned on the basis of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, namely, on 15 September 1998 by an order of the Supreme Court pending its determination of applications by the applicant for certiorari and prohibition until the decision was adopted on 18 March 1999, and, secondly, pending the determination of an appeal lodged by the applicant on 6 February 2001 against the decision by the district court dismissing an application for an amendment of his statement of claim. The Supreme Court rejected his latter appeal on 21 February 2002. The case also appears to have remained dormant from 14 May 1996 and 31 October 1997.
11.  From 8 March 2002 until 26 March 2002 three hearing sessions took place and one session of oral submissions.
12.  By a judgment dated 23 May 2002, the District Court dismissed the action concerning three of the defendants but found in favour of the applicant regarding the defendant company.
13.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The appeal was heard on 21 March 2003, following one adjournment at the defendants’ request with the applicant’s consent.
14.  On 21 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the findings of the district court.
4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1937 respectively and live in Limassol.
5.  On 30 April 1990 a civil action was lodged against the applicants before the District Court of Nicosia, in their capacity as administrators of the estate of Mr K. Kynigos, concerning a contract of sale of property the latter had concluded with the plaintiffs.
6.  The pleadings were completed by 7 December 1990.
7.  Between the above date and 12 May 1997, the case was continuously adjourned. Two adjournments were at the applicants’ request; four took place due to the failure of the applicants’ lawyer to appear before the court and six at the request of both parties. Further, within this period the case was adjourned five times by the court itself, namely in 26 March 1993 until 6 April 1993, on 19 November 1993 until 11 April 1994 and then again to 13 October 1994; on 11 October 1995 the court adjourned the case until 4 March 1996 and then again until 30 September 1996.
8.  The hearing commenced on 12 May 1997 and was completed after several sessions on 6 July 1999, with two adjournments at the plaintiffs’ request and three at the applicants’.
9.  On 30 November 1999 the district court delivered its judgment finding in favour of the plaintiffs.
10.  On 11 January 2000 the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment.
11.   The file of the case was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 8 February 2001.
12.  The appeal was dismissed on 8 June 2001 by the Supreme Court for failure of the applicants to submit their outline address within the required time-limit.
13.  On 17 July 2001 the applicants lodged an application for the reinstatement of the appeal.
14.  The appeal was heard on 1 February 2002 following one adjournment by the court and on 21 May 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ application.